19' 8ms, need help?

hi people,

1st i would like to say thnx for the fast updates to this site, its the best one that i could find on the Internet

2nd i realle need help, i am in cross road and i dont know where to go :S:P

im tryin to buy a 19' LCD Monitor, my needs is fast response and full colors (gaming and watching DVD's)

watchin this news in THG
u can see in the last page (last sentences it says
:Note that the NEC 1970GX has just arrived in our lab, and we will review it as soon as possible."

the article is 3 months old, and i was waitin all the time for the Test of the NEC 1970GX, its just that they really nice and as i saw in some sites, its the Number 1

so i need ur Opinion guys, i just want to upgrade for 4-5 years :)

and yea one more, is there any 19' Flat Monitor with 1600x1200 Resolution??

thnx alot, PlutoDelic.
15 answers Last reply
More about help
  1. well nice (not really bad) test results
    NEC has high prices, now all i have to think about is

    BenQ or NEC, and the price can give me the answer :)?
  2. Hello PlutoDelic,

    Toms review of the Viewsonic VP191b on May 26th 2005.


    This Viewsonic 19" LCD seems to be the best for gaming and other activities thats out on the market at this point.
    If you decide to purchase this LCD the be sure that there's a sticker on the box that says 8ms response time because I've learned that there are 3 versions of the Viewsonic VP191b, version one is at 20ms, version two is at 16ms and the newest version three is at 8ms.

    Viewsonic also has a dead pixel policy that from what I hear no other LCD maker offers at this point.
  3. yes, looks like its really nice :)

    499$, thats circa 400 euros, not expensive, but i guess its a lil bit more

    well thnx for givin me that article, i dont know how i skiped it :S
  4. Heh. Just wondering what dead pixel policy of Viewsonic you're referring to. The one I know of is here:


    "To ensure the highest performing displays, ViewSonic sets limits as to the allowable number of pixel anomalies. ViewSonic has adopted the following pixel criteria to supplement our existing three-year limited warranty. This policy applies to all ViewSonic LCD displays during the warranty period.

    ViewSonic sets limits on 14" - 15" LCD's at 4 bright sub-pixels, 4 dark sub-pixels, or a combination of 4.
    ViewSonic sets limits on 17" - 19" LCD's at 7 bright sub-pixels, 7 dark sub-pixels, or a combination of 7.
    ViewSonic sets limits on 20" & greater LCD's at 10 bright sub-pixels, 10 dark sub-pixels, or a combination of 10.

    It is possible that any replacement display may also have some non-performing sub-pixels. This should be considered when requesting a warranty exchange."

    A maximum allowed of 7 subpixels (for 17-inch and 19-inch) is pretty high, higher than ISO for that size. Actually, they say they're ISO 13406-2 compliant, which means their max allowed should be 6, regardless of what they say for their pixel policy.

    Chuck Hsiao
    Formerly of Amptron
  5. Hello Chuck_Hsiao,

    After reading your rant on anandtech.com I've decided to put off buying the 19" Viewsonic VP191b because of the sparkling, the new form of ghosting, that's caused by the Viewsonic Overdrive technology and the way they messed with the response time formula to achieve their new 8ms response time.

    So what 19" thru 21" LCD would you suggest for games foremost, movies next and then the office environment that more likely than not will never stress the MS response time of a LCD?
  6. I can't seem to find this "sparkling issue" on anandtech.com, would you mind sending me a link?
  7. Well it didn't really originate with Anandtech.com, far as I know, but with Tom's Hardware when they reviewed Viewsonic's 8 ms monitor:


    It really comes down to overdrive implementation. Overdrive is a way to improve the response time of LCDs, by having the driving voltage be past that of what's desired for one frame (or more), before settling down on the desired frame. This is because small (i.e. gray-to-gray) transitions for LCDs are traditionally slow, but large (i.e. black-to-white) transitions are much faster. So if you are going from 0 to 175, say, you tell the monitor to make the first frame be 200, for example, with the rest be 175. This way, the monitor tries to go to 200, but over one frame it "only" reaches 175; it then spends the rest of the time at 175, the one that's desired in the first place. This is completely a programming trick (i.e. via controller circuitry) and does not change the characteristics of the LCD panel itself (brightness, contrast, etc.) in any way. The LCD panel itself is just as slow as it's always been, just that it's now masked because of overdrive.

    Viewsonic's implementation is somewhat different. Because they want to market a better number, they have the pixels go over what's desired, then count _only_ the rise part -- and omit the part afterwards where the brightness goes way above what's desired then settle down. This thus generates a sparkle effect -- previously dark parts of the screen suddenly flash, because of the pixels going above the desired value. This effect is increased in dithered images, like movies, because each pixel is actually rapidly changing its brightness (with the eye averaging out the effect), but the circuitry doesn't recognize that the pixels' brightness are meant to be averaged, and so thus overshoots them and making sparkles. And I would really recommend using a DVI connection rather than normal VGA; if the clock/phase settings are not perfectly set, each individual pixel actually changes its brightness quite a bit, thus generating a watery effect if they are far off from ideal. You can imagine what that's like with a sparkly monitor.

    (For more about close/phase settings and a handy screen to mess around with and see what it's like when your clock/phase are not set correctly, see www.techmind.org/lcd/phasexplan.html )

    So when Viewsonic came out with their 4 ms monitor, what really happens is that, yes, it does take only 4 ms to go from 0 to the desired value -- but then it spends the rest of the 12 ms of a normal 16 ms frame (assuming you're running at 60 Hz like most people) going past that desired value. Considering Tom's Hardware already reported the effect with Viewsonic's 8 ms monitor (which spends "only" 8 ms going over the intended value), you can imagine what the effect will be with a 4 ms monitor. When Tom's Hardware tested a 0 to 175 brightness transition, for example, it first shoots up to 210 brightness (but the 0 to 175 part of that transition does take only 4.5 ms), then settles down to within 10% of 175 some 26 ms later, for a total of 31 ms from when the value was requested. Viewsonic considers 210 brightness to be close enough to 175 that it can be omitted from the response time measurement; I leave it to you to decide for yourself if being 20% off from the desired color is close enough.

    In fairness though I haven't seen the monitor, so I have no idea if the sparkle effect is actually that noticeable with either monitor. That's sort of a YMMV thing I guess, so you might want to look at it in a store before deciding to not buy it. But I really don't like how they're perverting these specs in order to market a better monitor and thus confuse the consumers, which is why I posted that rant.

    I should mention, this has nothing to do with overdrive itself, but only to do with Viewsonic's implementation of it. Overdrive itself is a perfectly valid way to speed things up and does not generate any sparkles, unless you overshoot so far that it becomes noticeable, i.e. Viewsonic's method. The original implementation was to set the overshoot value to be just enough so that the pixel reaches the desired brightness by the end of the frame.

    The part of Tom's Hardware when they talk about how Viewsonic implements overdrive (for the 4 ms monitor) is here:


    Read onwards from that page, they have actual measurements of the effect to back up what they say.
  8. Chuck_Hsiao:

    If I am right, the same panel thats in ViewSonic VP191b, is aviable without overdrive in the Fujitsu-Siemens C19-4.

    Please look at: http://www.behardware.com/articles/572/page3.html

    The strange thing is that the tester, Vincent Alzieu, still complains about "twinkling" while watching movies.

    And notes that the C19-4 is slower than the VP191b in FPS gaming.

    So, maby this "twinklig" has nothing to do with overdrive, mabey just the fact that a good TFT panel reveals the dithering artefacts in movies more cleanly and clearly, than the CRT.
  9. Hmm well it looks like it does have overdrive of some sort, because far as I know you currently can't really achieve 8 ms with a VA panel without it. I'm not sure how they generate the twinkling report, since the first page of the article reports that TN panels have a twinkling effect, which isn't true. In fact, the V191b is a VA panel. In fact, they seem to report twinkling all over the place: with the BenQ FP91V+ ("My first twinkles, my second..."), the Fujitsu-Siemens C19-4, the Ilyama E480S, in fact looks like just about all the monitors they covered. Are they looking at a twinkling movie or what? It would be interesting to see how they'd rate a CRT monitor using the same movie. So far they're the only guys I know of to see twinkling everywhere though. Or maybe that's what Hardwarezone meant when they said the VX924's dithering was evident (Viewsonic claims it's 16.7M colors, which supposedly means 8-bit which supposedly means no dithering).

    Well so I'm gonna have to think about this one a bit and do more research. One thing people don't quite grasp about pixels is that CRTs have a Gaussian pixel profile (i.e. the brightness distribution over distance is like a bell curve), while for LCDs they are (nearly) perfect squares. This does mean that for CRTs, each pixel naturally "bleeds" into its adjacent pixels. You would think that people would appreciate *true* sharp edges on an LCD but no, people complain that LCDs suffer from pixelation...owing to the fact that they can finally display text clearly! So you can turn down the sharpness of an LCD if its pixelation bothers you. Anyway though, they seem to report twinkling everywhere, so it might be just dithering artifacts in movies that CRTs can't quite show due to pixel blur. You might be right on that one. Admittedly, though, I don't like their method as much as Tom's Hardware's; I'm much more for a technically objective method (i.e. Tom's Hardware's route with the actual physical measurement of pixel brightness change for response time) rather than a subjective "well it looks fine to me" that BeHardware uses.

    Oh yeah, something that I noticed: all of the interpolation images for all the monitors are actually the exact same image. Couldn't they show us the actual image of crappy interpolation when they said the monitor has crappy interpolation? Making statements like that but not showing the actual evidence (when they are clearly able to, look at all the screenshots) doesn't impress me. Sometimes users want to look at the evidence for themselves. Or maybe I'm getting too disillusioned with how manufacturers inflate (or deflate, depending on the situation) their specs all the time without giving any data =P

    Oh yeah something they apparently didn't recognize: the surface treatment the BenQ FP91V+ has is the same reason why CRTs have "real world" less contrast than LCDs. Sure, CRTs have a theoretical contrast ratio of infinity, since these phosphors don't glow at all if they're hit by electrons. However, most people (except for movies) use their monitors in a lit environment. In the typical office environment of around 300 lux, a CRT's contrast ratio is around 30:1 while an LCD's is around 100:1 due to the glare and reflection. I wonder what would've happened if they tried to objectively measure the contrast ratio with the BenQ FP91V+ in a lit environment? At any rate, this would mean that the BenQ has a somewhat worse performance in that department. Fortunately for them, BeHardware does mention that.

    At the bottom of every page, they have a link to their collection of dead pixel policies for manufacturers. Back when I worked at Amptron, I emailed them about Amptron's dead pixel policy (3 bright subpixels, 3 dark subpixels, OR 5 total subpixels max; 0 whole pixel defects allowed) which I really think is superior to most of the name brands. I also emailed about inaccuracies in some of the numbers for manufacturers that they report*, as well as some of the inaccuracies in their statements (for example, if a manufacturer says they're ISO 13406-2 compliant, it means their screens are Class 2 for dead pixels, NOT class 1 like BeHardware says). I haven't gotten a reply back yet though, nor has the article been updated. However, I wrote the email in April (note it was last updated in March) and Amptron is a U.S. company, not a worldwide company (BeHardware is French), so maybe that's why.

    *The standard that BeHardware uses for reporting dead pixels is how many you need to have for the manufacturer to _replace_, rather than max allowed. For example, this means that the ISO 13406-2 is 3 bright pixels, 3 dark pixels, 7 pixels with subpixel defects (Amptron's 3-3-5 subpixels would be 4-4-6, which might not sound so good until you realize that Amptron's is subpixels not pixels). But they seem to let that slide for some manufacturers while not for others; Dell's website says 6 max but BeHardware claims it's 6 for replacement, Formac's is 5 max (and that's whole pixels, note how they defined it in their "zero pixel defect warranty" section), not 4 for replacement as stated in the article, etc. The most interesting one is Acer's, since their policy is written in a most obtuse way; if I read it right, you need 16 defective subpixels for replacement (note how they say 4 defects per million pixels allowed then at the bottom gives the total number of pixels on a screen in terms of subpixels...that's right, a "pixel" is a subpixel, and there's nearly 4 million on a 17-inch or 19-inch). Even if I didn't read it right, Acer's is talking about maxes, so they should be 6 across (for 17-inch or 19-inch) or 2 or more in center of the screen needed for replacement. Anyway, it's possible that those numbers were updated in the years following the initial publication of the article, and BeHardware simply never went back to update those numbers (with the exception of the Apple one).

    Acer's dead pixel policy (note that it says it applies only to their notebooks, but I haven't been able to find any other so I'm assuming it applies to their monitors generally as well which may or may not be true): Well I was going to post a link but it's lagging for me, so go to their website and search for it, either "dead pixel" or "pixel defect".
  10. Chuck_Hsiao:

    We seem to have hijacked this thread :-)

    Yes, I agree that it is strange they show the same sample pictures for every screen, look at: http://www.monitor4u.co.kr/
    They actually take a photo of each screen they test, under different conditions.

    And, yes, I agree with you - like a HiFi tube amplifier, a good CRT makes everything look nicer and softer than it really is.
    Its like there is an inbuilt dithering filter, in every CRT.

    As to the twinkling, mabey behardware is not using DVD for its screen tests, but som kind of compressed format like DivX.
    And they are seeing compression artefacts on the best, fastest and clearest screens.

    And as for your @-mail to behardware, did you write it in French?
    The Frenchmen are really hardheaded about the fact that French is THE world language.
  11. Well if they say that there's twinkling everywhere due to the movie, it's not helpful and may be misleading for the user because the twinkling is not something inherent in the monitor (i.e. Viewsonic V191b+ with its overdrive) but in the video compression itself. It's no longer monitor testing, but movie testing.

    Most monitors comes with a sharpness adjustment in the OSD, so I guess if you want the look and feel of a CRT's pixels, you can always fuzzy it out using that.

    I wrote the email in English, as I am slightly less eloquent in French. Quite a bit less than "slightly less", actually =P
  12. I have the Samsung 193p+ and I find it amazing. I don't care for TN panels myself, and dislike reflective screen coatings. You may not be able to find a review of the Samsung yet, since it is fairly new.
  13. I almost bought the 193p+ today... got a little side tracked so i'll prolly go in in a day or so to take a look at it... if its what i expect. i'll be buying it.

    $700(CAN) at Futureshop

    there is a review at [H]ardOCP forum

    <A HREF="http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=911752" target="_new">click</A>

    <b><A HREF="http://www.digitalgunfire.com" target="_new">DigitalGunfire-Industrial EBM</A></b>
    ASUS P4S8X-P4 2.4B - 2x512M DDR333 - ATI 9500Pro - WD80G HD(8M) - SAMSUNG SV0844D 8G HD - LG 16X DVD - Yamaha F1 CDRW
  14. Dell 2001FP. Best piece of any computer Hardware I've ever bought. So happy, I got a 2405FPW being shipped right now :)
Ask a new question

Read More

Flat Panel Monitors Peripherals